Why do people hate Liberals?

[Uncensored2008]

You are engaging in ad hominem.

Is that right, Herr Goebbels?

 

[numan]

being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal, it is a moral question not a political one.

Yet you cannot prove that a human fetus is truly any more "human" than a fish fetus. In fact, the scientific evidence supports the opposite view.

You merely ASSERT that your view is true, it has never been proven.

Yet you demand that your personal opinion must be believed, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want them to do should be thrown in prison and suffer other penalties.

You are not liberal, since you reject scientific analysis and support religious dogma. You are not conservative, since you do not think that the state should butt out of people's private affairs as much as possible.

What you are is a totalitarian, who demands that other people follow your will, no matter how irrational you may be.
.

 

[Truthseeker420]

You are engaging in ad hominem.

Is that right, Herr Goebbels?

well... you could have just said fuck you.

 

[numan]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it.The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

I think you would need to live here for a while in order to understand America -- there is so little in Finland that could really prepare you for the American Experience (ideally, you would need to be born and raised here, but I would not wish that on anyone).

A large segment of Americans are rather dopey, very uneducated, quite tetchy and humorless, and have tendencies to become hysterical about unimportant matters. These are basic characteristics which are well-documented all through American history.

Superimposed on these elements of national charcter, they have, in recent years (since the Second World War), been subjected to what is probably the most intense, prolonged and sophisticated program of brainwashing and mental control which has ever existed in human history. This brainwashing and conditioning is carried out mainly through television, mass entertainment, advertising and public "education", but there are many, many other adjuncts which, in total, constitute an almost constant regime of mind control.

This gives American thought and emotion, in general, a uniformity which is quite beyond the experience of a reasonably educated European.

The strong tendencies toward hysteria and tetchiness (a word which is very American, and perhaps untranslatable into other languages) make Americans ideal subjects for their rulers and controllers to turn into suspicious haters of unreal enemies. In this way, Americans are manipulated into forgetting and remaining unaware of their own best interests, and expending their time and emotions fighting imaginary threats and unreal problems.

In the 1950's the bogeyman was the "Commies", and the program of brainwashing then was so crude and blatant that very little of the television "entertainment" and other records of the time are ever seen by our modern population. The obviousness of the brainwashing would too likely let the cat out of the bag and make people aware of the brainwashing process. Ironically, in the 1950's, "liberal" and "liberalism" were terms of praise, representing the noble alternative to "Communist totalitarianism". Since modern brainwashing has as one of its chief goals the obliteration of human powers of recollection, almost no one today remembers this fact, and the young are never exposed to any historical artifacts which might reveal it.

Today, the "Commie" enemy having disappeared with disconcerting speed, the Great Satan has been replaced by more etiolated enemies -- liberals and muslims. It has been hard work to build them up as believable threats, but Americans are nothing if not industrious in lying, and the goal has been achieved.

I think it is important for people in Finland and similar countries to realize that Americans have almost no sense of community. Finns are a small group of people, speaking a language unknown by the rest of the world, sharing a common history of struggle to remain unassimilated by more powerful cultures around them. This gives them much more a sense of "being all in it together", which was perhaps present in Britain for a brief period during the Second World War, but which definitely is not a part of the American Experience. Americans have had a dominant "get rich quick" ethos right from the beginning, a tendency to rootlessness and "moving on", and a tendency to "do unto others before they do unto me." They have so little sense of coming from somewhere, that very often they do not know even the names of their great-grandparents!

All this is, perhaps, the very antithesis of what it means to be a Finn. It also, I think, explains why so many Americans are so cold and callous toward their fellow citizens and so nasty to those more unfortunate than themselves.

Poor Ayn Rand!! She spent her life fighting for a society of Selfishness, and never really realized that her Ideal was already achieved, to unexampled perfection, in the American society all around her!!
.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

It's more about ideology than simply party. And yes, I want conservatives to stand up for their principles no matter what. You can call that pouting, whining, throwing temper tantrums or whatever you like. In case you haven't noticed, this country is going broke! And the liberal solution is to raise taxes and spend more which in effect will make us go broke at a faster rate. Conservatives want to cut spending and lower taxes which in turn will boost our economy.

Thank you for proving my point. One groups wants one thing, and won't budge on the issue, and the opposite group does the same. Get a clue, government is about compromise. Government is about bettering your society, for the whole, not a few elitists. But we have seemed to lose that notion. However, as long as we have the babies in Congress, that are so blinded by party hatred, we will continue to go down the toilet.

One example:
Obama and the dems tried to get legislation passed that would offer huge tax incentives for large corporations to bring their factories back home to America, to boost OUR economy, and the repubs shot it down.... hhhmmmm and the repubs want us to believe they have "us" in their best interest?

How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?

Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?

Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?

The fact is that for any country to survive, clear choices and hard decisions must be made. To compromise on those decisions is the path to ruin..

Witness the GOP. They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years. It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.

Compromise? No thanks. You can have it.

Are you serious? First I will address what you have stated:

Do we compromise on the notion that people who murder other people should not be jailed?

There is no need for compromise here, because the entire civilized world has deemed murder to be a taboo, to which you are either jailed, or executed. So this argument is irrelevant.

Do we compromise on the notion that if we are attacked by another country, the perhaps we shouldn't fight back?
Irrelevant again. Every sovereign nation with an army would attack back if attacked first, and would be justified to do so under the Just War Theory. Moot point.


Witness the GOP. They have adopted a policy of compromise for the past 20 years. It has weakened us as a nation, it has brought our economy to the very brink of ruin, and our societal rot has increased almost exponentially.

You are using the GOP as an example as to why compromise fails hahaha those idiots don't know the meaning of compromise. Try again, and try not to use the GOP as an example.

How do you come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise?

And I saved the best for last!! How did I come to the conclusion that governing is about compromise...hhhmmmm.. maybe by listening when I was being taught American History. I will provide some examples for you:

Had we NOT been into compromising, we would have never even gotten our Constitution passed, nor our Declaration of Independence. I will elaborate. When the original draft of the Declaration was submitted, it mentioned that slavery was immoral. However, the southern states said they would refuse to sign it, if that wasn't taken out. Was it taken out? Yes! What do we call that: compromise

Moving on. When the Constitutional Convention was taking place, there was a great deal of arguing going on about how we would choose representatives for our government. The large states wanted it done on population, while the smaller states wanted a certain, fixed number from each state. What happened: faced with a problem over representation: One group wanted one way, the other group another. What did we do? That's right, compromise. We made 2 houses, the Senate, which would be 2 reps from each state, and then we created the House of reps, to where members would be elected on population.

Need I go on, or do you get the picture? Like I said originally, government is about compromise. It is at the very core of our foundation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

----in order to support vast, monolithic, transnational, crony-capitalist, mega-corporation monopolies.
.

Numan, utilizing all 40 of your IQ points, can you explain how establishing a system where the federal government uses it's power of coercion to force consumers to buy the products of favored corporations is anything other than "crony capitalism?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yet you cannot prove that a human fetus is truly any more "human" than a fish fetus.

ROFL

My gawd but you're stupid fuck.

Hey shit fer brains, what if we were to, you know, do a DNA sample? Do you think it would come up as Ahi?

In fact, the scientific evidence supports the opposite view.

ROFL

You ignorant cow - no, science pretty well has proven than human offspring are human.

Stick to the hate sites retard, science ain't your forte'.

You merely ASSERT that your view is true, it has never been proven.

Yet you demand that your personal opinion must be believed, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want them to do should be thrown in prison and suffer other penalties.

You are not liberal, since you reject scientific analysis and support religious dogma. You are not conservative, since you do not think that the state should butt out of people's private affairs as much as possible.

What you are is a totalitarian, who demands that other people follow your will, no matter how irrational you may be.
.

Edit: No content trolling.

 

[Uncensored2008]

well... you could have just said fuck you.

If I were an ignorant feral baboon, such as you, I'm sure I would have.

You are a demagogue - a hate filled partisan who seeks to demonize the political opposition.

Yeah, it does make you a scumbag - Herr Goebbels.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

conservatives want small unintrusive government----the exact opposite of fascism.

you really don't know much about this do you?

Really? Then please explain the intrusiveness of conservatives (read: Republicans) into the bedrooms of Americans, women's bodies and their contents, and what people choose to do (like smoke pot)?????? Such hypocrisy.

Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state(A "Christian" one??????) that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to democracy, liberalism, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that "superior" nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones.[9]



Sounds like the Republican Party to me.

being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal, it is a moral question not a political one.

most true conservatives would favor legalization of pot.

gay marriage is another moral rather than political issue------either you believe its wrong or you believe its OK.

you libs always try to mix politics with morals. anyone who does not share your morals is the enemy and is to be destroyed.

liberalism is a philosophy of hate and exclusion and slavery to the government and mind control. like liberalism? move to cuba or north korea.

being opposed to the murder of unborn children is neither conservative or liberal, it is a moral question not a political one.
So why in the hell does it take up so much of our political debate. If it is solely a moral issue, then it is simple: If you are against abortions, do not have one


most true conservatives would favor legalization of pot.
I guess it's just too bad those "true" conservatives you speak of don't exist in our government..

gay marriage is another moral rather than political issue------either you believe its wrong or you believe its OK.
Yet again, if this issue is of a moral one, rather than political, why the hell are we waisting so much time on it? If you don't like gays getting married, ohh well, deal with it. There are plenty of things in life to get upset over, and whether Harry and Steve or Lyndsy and Caroline want to get married should not be high on the list. I mean, if you are advocating limited government, and individual freedoms.

you libs always try to mix politics with morals. anyone who does not share your morals is the enemy and is to be destroyed.

I'm not a liberal (I am independent), but isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Think about it...


liberalism is a philosophy of hate and exclusion and slavery to the government and mind control. like liberalism? move to cuba or north korea.


Hahaha I think you might be confused about liberalism. There is American Liberalism (contemporary liberalism), and classical liberalism. This might help:

Contemporary Liberalism-a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution.

Contemporary Liberalism consists of separate and often contradictory streams of thought springing from a common ancestry; the intellectual parent of these variants has not only endured intact, it has outlived some of its offspring and shown more intellectual stamina than others. The tenets of this parent, known as classical liberalism, have answered the needs and the challenges of over three centuries in the West. By observing its past and discovering how it responded to the dramatic historical dynamics of economic, technological, political, and social changes we may understand how classical liberalism provides a strong foundation for the future.

For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition. In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:

an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions

Now, hopefully you can see that classical liberalism, or rather, true liberalism is not far from what you American conservatives preach. If you chose to do your homework you would be able to see that.

The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
Compromise:
Noun:
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....

And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.

Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.

I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.

How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?

Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.

As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.

How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.

We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.

You will have to provide specific examples of how the Republicans want to tell you" what you can and can't do with your life".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Their economic theory's are destructive.

Yep...right along with their social programs.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Education.

Education.​

Education.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html

More leftist bullshit.

This board as a microcosm illustrates a group of conservative/libertarians who are substantially better educated than the leftists. Nearly every conservative here is a college graduate. Most of us have graduate degrees.

Now you of the left do have Truthmatters and Jakestarkey as your brain trust, but I'd still rate the education of the right quite a bit higher than that of the left.

History sucks when it flies in the face of ones ideology, eh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

History sucks when it flies in the face of ones ideology, eh?

History?

ROFL

Right....

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur

yeah, but you're so confused...those are classical liberals....you know people who wanted SMALLER governement.....LESS POWERFUL government, and more LIBERY And FREEDOM......

Of course liberals wanted smaller less powerful governments--that is until the liberals became the government. The size of government is not part of political ideology and is probably not even a means for achieving their political ideology. Today, does either side care really about the size of government except when they are our of power? Is it only used as part of their a political campaign stuff? When is the last time Republicans were elected and then proceeded to reduce the size of government?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.

I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.

How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?

Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.

As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.

How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.

We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.

You will have to provide specific examples of how the Republicans want to tell you" what you can and can't do with your life".

Pro-life people have a problem with abortions. From a government standpoint us conservatives don't believe federal dollars should be spent toward abortions.

Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:

Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care

In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

^Source: MoveOn.org Political Action: Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

A Republican lawmaker, a woman, has introduced a bill in the New Mexico legislature that would make abortion illegal for victims of rape.

^Source:
GOP bill: Abortion after rape is ‘tampering with evidence’ - Philly.com

And if that isn't enough, here is how much they hate abortions in Michigan:

Can something be "more illegal" than it already is? I guess it can if you are a Michigan Republican. Yesterday, the Michigan state House and Senate both passed bills that outlaw so-called "partial birth abortions".

Source:
Daily Kos: Michigan Republicans vote to make illegal abortions illegal

Forty years after the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal and recognized a woman’s right to control her body and her life, the issue may well be headed back to the Supreme Court.

Opponents of abortion rights have been patiently and methodically chipping away at the 1973 decision, getting laws passed that restrict the circumstances under which women can exercise their right to have a legal abortion, and making it harder for doctors to provide abortions or even abortion counseling. Republican governors and legislatures in several states, notably Texas, have made an even broader assault on women’s health by trying to close clinics that provide birth control counseling, breast cancer screening and other important services.

Source:
North Dakota, Arkansas Pass Abortion Restrictions - NYTimes.com

I do not think I need to go on about how conservatives are trying to make abortion illegal.

As for marriage, it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals wish to change the definition. And since a marriage license is a binding contract there must be a clear definition.

Wrong. This might help you. Holy Matrimony IS a union between a man and a woman. Marriage, however, is a civil contract, performed by the state.

Marriage versus holy matrimony

I would suggest to John Kass (“As times change, will tolerance for tradition be tolerated?” Column, March 27) that there is a difference between "holy matrimony,” – sanctioned by God – and "marriage” – a legal union regulated and licensed by the state. One does not have to lose or deny his religious beliefs about what constitutes holy matrimony while recognizing and accepting the legality of a same-sex marriage.

There are faiths and churches today that still refuse to marry two individuals of different faiths due to religious convictions. Yet it is the state that recognizes, and may even conduct, a legal marriage between the two. At least one major religion does not recognize divorce within its faith, yet the state does.

Source:
Marriage versus holy matrimony - Chicago Tribune

How are conservatives telling women what they can or can't do? Specifically.

How is telling a woman what she can and can't do with her reproductive organs, NOT telling her what she can/can't do? If the government tomorrow, started making laws about vasectomies and when men can and can't get one, I bet you among many others, would be all over them, telling them to fuck off, and they have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your reproductive organs. YET you among others have absolutely NO problem telling women what they can/can't do. If you can't see that, then that is your own short-falling.


We have no problem with women making the same as men. And I imagine your referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Act which was passed into law or perhaps the Paycheck Fairness Act that was blocked by the House. The reasons conservatives opposed it was because it would lead to more discrimination lawsuits which would be more costly to employers and at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment high would not be a good idea. And remember this wasn't new legislation this was basically an addition to an existing law.

Wow! you have no problem with women making as much as men, yet conservatives shoot down the Paycheck Fairness Act every time it comes to vote. And you mean to tell me that the reason for that is because of the lawsuits that would come of it? Well if the country is in such a bad place that if we made a law making it illegal to pay different based on sex, we would fall into some great depression, or that it would have some huge detrimental effect, I can tell you one thing: the longer we wait to enact that, the worse it is going to get. Unless however, you never plan on paying a woman as much as a man. But since you claim you do, better hurry up before all those legit lawsuits cripple our country past recovery. If the corporation have to pay the piper for all the discrimination they have exercised over women the past 50+ years, then so be it. It is high time those people pay for their mistakes, and wrongdoings. And the Lilly Ledbetter Act was a cop-out for not passing the Paycheck Fairness Act. It was the conservatives compromise. They agreed to not put the 180 day from the first paycheck limit on suing a company once gaining knowledge of unfair pay. So, instead of allowing women to make as much as a man, the conservatives said that there is no time limit on how long a woman can sue a company for unfair pay. You people that follow this idiotic line of reasoning are despicable human beings. You want to tell your daughter, or your mom, or your sister, "Sorry sweetheart, you just will never make as much as a man. But thats okay, because you can sue companies if you happen to find out that you are getting paid unfairly." Instead of telling the aforementioned, "Sweetheart, we fought hard, and now, you will make just as much as a man, if you don't the company can get into serious legal problems."

I personally am appalled that we are even still having to debate whether or not to pay women as much as men in 2013!! The Paycheck Fairness Act was enacted in 1963, yet somehow we still don't pay women as much as men. Pathetic if you ask me. It shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY should get paid the same, for doing the same job. Just because a man is doing the same job a woman is doing does not warrant the justification of paying him more. Equality is something this country has fought and bled for, yet we deprive our own citizens of the right. And who can we thank for that now: conservatives.

 

[JWBooth]

Leeches are annoying and of limited usefulness.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals are like Hollanders pulling bricks out of the dykes to build houses for the poor

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[regent]

Ah you see both liberals and conservatives are for individual freedom but what does that mean? Freedom for whom, freedom to do what? Does individual freedom mean freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom to do as I want, when I want? We use these glittering generalities and seldom have to define them. We say freedom and "freedom" glitters with promise and goodness. Some other glittering generalities might be patriotism, Americanism, founding fathers, red white and blue, constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? Are you sure about that? Because I am about to provide evidence on how the GOP is trying to make abortions illegal. Not that they are trying to stop federal funding for them.. no no no, that is not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it illegal (not possible) for a woman to have one. Here are some facts/links for your enlightenment:

You do realize that what is printed on the hate sites has no resemblance to fact, doncha?

You posting shit from MoveOn about Abortion opponents is about like posting shit from the KKK about blacks.

You have zero credibility.

 

[Ernie S.]

I wasn't attacking you bro, just saying that you had further proved my point. As you stated, you wouldn't budge on your principles. That is exactly what is wrong with Congress. They simply won't budge. Being a Political Science major with a concentration in Law, I have learned very well, that government is about compromise. Not everyone will get exactly what they want, but that is the definition of compromise:
Compromise:
Noun:
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

However, our politicians today are reluctant to heed to concessions, and that is pathetic. I have seen 9 year olds work out their problems better than the grown men in Congress.. kinda makes one wonder....

And to answer your question, yes I would compromise on my principles, if it was to better my country. I would not have the audacity to sit there, and say it's my way or the highway. It is not solely my country, and it is not only Congress's country. There are 300+ million people to consider, and if I have to compromise on some of my principles to better the lives of as many people as possible, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would do it. I however, am not selfish, and think more about other people than your average citizen.

Conservative principles are limited government, individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional American values.

I wouldn't compromise on any of these principles for the simple fact that these principles are better for this country.

How can you sit there and tell me conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom? If that were the case, then they would have no problem with woman getting abortions, gays being able to have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples, women making the same amount of money as her male counterpart, just to name a few. All of these clearly violate your argument that conservatives want limited government, and individual freedom. Telling a woman what she can and can't do, is directly violating individual freedom. The conservative party might have good ideals, but they practice the complete opposite. They do not like to practice what they preach, and it is evident to anyone who knows the way they vote. They are twisted. They say, "Ohh we want limited government. But we are gonna tell you what you can and can't do with your life." Do you see the irony?

In a perfect world, there would need be no government intervention into the abortion debate. People would simply not even consider something so heinous. There would be no debate on "gay marriage". People would simply refer to their Funk and Wagnals and see that marriage is defined as a legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.
People would pay their workers what they are worth without regard for their gender. If the job is carrying bricks, the worker who carries the most bricks would command the highest pay. Women, on average, can carry fewer bricks. They tend to work fewer hours over their careers due to pregnancies and gynecological problems. They are weaker physically, have less stamina, are slower and, at least stereotypically, lack the forcefulness to lead groups. Yes there are many exceptions just as there are many exceptions to the general rule that women earn less than men.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for laws against murder and rape or robbery, yet there are, because the world is NOT perfect. Every abortion, every perversion of the language, every demand that inferior workers get paid at the same rate as the superior workers, makes it a bit less perfect.
When you believe that abortion is murder, that marriage is a union of one man and one woman and when you believe that you pay an employee based on what he is worth, you do not compromise. A man must stand on principle or he is nothing.